The only reason you could have for telling the store owner, is for the store owner to be able to fire the employee. It follows from this that if do tell the owner, and he does indeed fire the employee, then you are responsible for the employee losing his job.
Knowing that this is a very strong possibility, you would not tell the owner unless you wanted the employee to lose his job. There are some situations in which it would be your duty to tell the employee, the police and so on. For example, if this person was working with children then despite the fact that he has not been convicted of anything it is clearly better to give the children the benefit of the doubt. However, this person is working in a professional photo shop, which is not the sort of place where children hang out, so there is no duty. On the contrary, you have a duty not to inform on people in cases where you know next to nothing of the circumstances involved. That's why our countries are governed by the rule of law, not by lynch mobs. If you want to know what societies are like where people regularly inform on their neighbours, ask some of your fellow PDMLers who lived under communist regimes. You can be certain that the police and local authorities know where this person is, and where he is working. They will have made a decision to tell the shop owner or not about his employee's background, and they are (one assumes) professionally competent, so your involvement in this process would be unwarranted interference. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 January 2006 22:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded > > Why do you conclude that the shop owner will fire the > employee prior to the court's decision? Would you? I > wouldn't, nor would I bear any responsibility if he did. > Advising the owner is the "responsible" thing to do. > > Jack > > > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The shop owner isn't in jeopardy. All he did was hire someone, > > apparently after any alleged misdeeds took place. Until > proven guilty, > > the accused should be allowed to earn a living. The world > is plagued > > with busybodies who can't keep their nose out of other people's > > business. > > Paul > > On Jan 8, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > > > In this case, Paul, the shop owner is in jeopardy and deserves to > > be > > > alerted. > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> I've found that unless someone has been placed in jeopardy, it's > > best > > >> > > >> to mind one's own business. As others have said, "innocent until > > >> proven guilt." > > >> Paul > > >> On Jan 8, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > > >> > > >>> Kevin, > > >>> Understand your dilemma, but even though you don't know yet "who > > is > > >>> working for him", due to this photo related situation, I'd let > > the > > >>> owner know before too many others make the connection. > > >>> Are you certain this is the same person and that the owner won't > > >> fain > > >>> shock and surprise? > > >>> > > >>> Jack > > >>> > > >>> --- Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I recently walked into a large Sydney camera store and ventured > > to > > >>>> the > > >>>> "pro section" to purchase some Fuji Provia. I was > astounded that > > >> the > > >>>> person serving me was an ex-photog who is currently in > the midst > > >> of > > >>>> a child porn investigation. He worked with his uncle who has > > been > > >>>> charged > > >>>> and a trial is due. > > >>>> > > >>>> My question is, should I make the store owner aware of who is > > >> working > > >>>> for him? > > >>>> Am I being vigilant or is it sheer bloody mindedness > on my part? > > >>>> Is this really none of my business? > > >>>> I must admit this sort of thing boils my blood quickly. > > >>>> > > >>>> Kind regards > > >>>> Kevin > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for > > >> lunch. > > >>>> > > >>>> Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> __________________________________________ > > >>> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > >>> Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > >>> dsl.yahoo.com > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > > Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > >
